Re: Turnipp - a merger proposal

[Paul Francis <[e-mail]>]

>  >
>  >The inconveniency of doing source routes with variable length address show in
>  >CLNP, where routers have to look inside the option field to determine the
>  >currently active destination address - not to mention that poor
>  >implementations that would not examine the option field might generate loops.
>  
>  Christian,
>  
>  You're not going to like this comment, but an implementation that does not
>  at least recognize the existence of a type-2 option field is not only poor,
>  it's non-conforming;  it can discard the packet if it sees an option it
>  does not support, but it cannot ignore the presence of a source route
>  option field and forward the packet without looking into it.
>  

Has CLNP changed since RFC994?  RFC994 says that partial source routing 
is type 3, and therefore the packet can be forwarded without the router 
looking into the option. 

PF
---